Wikidata:Requests for comment/Interwiki links for subpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is as follows:

• There is no consensus to include subtemplates with more than one sitelink. The support percentage is 63%; however the proponents have not provided rationales.
• There is consensus against including subtemplates with only one sitelink. The support percentage is under 10%; this is a SNOW case.
• There is consensus to exclude /doc, /sandbox, /testcases, and /TemplateData pages. There is nearly unanimous support to exclude /doc, /sandobx, and /TemlateData pages and a weaker consensus to exclude /testcases pages (76% support).
• There is consensus to include module subpages except for /doc pages. Unanimous support.
• There is consensus against including subpages of portals (40% in favor).

--Jakob (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Wikidata:Notability says, subpage of a template, portal, or module aren't notable items. Ebraminio wants to including templates subpages, so this RfC's aim is to gain consensus on the question whether we want to host interwiki links for subpages (included submodule, subtemplate, etc.)--GZWDer (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Previous discussions:[reply]

• Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/04#Notability of items
• Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/06#subtemplate
• Wikidata:Project chat#Item for Template subpages

Discussion

I think wikidata should be used as a multilingual resources for templates, linking to existing templates and to internationalised templates that can be used on other wikimedia sites. This will need to include the facility for sitelinks to wikidata template pages as well. Filceolaire (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Yamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral It mostly depends on which subpages we are talking about. This, in my opinion, must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis mostly because a lot of subtemplates that are spread across several wikis have no eventual relevance to deserve an item. Some of these subtemplates are procedurally created to ease the load of code from the main template and thus there is no real purpose to connect them between the wikis. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support excluded below.--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support –ebraminio^talk 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support –-Calak (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral per Hahc21. --Rschen7754 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Filceolaire (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral per Hahc21. --Nouill (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Paperoastro (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose We are loosing the concept of database and we are transforming Wikidata into a links directory. There is a difference between interwiki links of articles and those of templates/subpages: article interwikis can be considered as a dictionary or at least as connection between corresponding knowledge thema in different languages and that's part of the knowledge. Templates and subpages not. Snipre (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Snipre. — TintoMeches, 13:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata:Notability says, Wikidata in its first phases has two main goals: to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. Template pages are inclused.--GZWDer (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Arbnos (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose GerardM (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral Hahc21 Already say what I want to say.AldNon^Ucallinme? 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose – We end up taking vastly increased maintenance effort for templates which oftentimes are eventually deleted anyway, especially as Lua modules become increasingly common as the load-bearing template device. If we want to carve out specific exemptions, that should be done before giving carte blanche to all subtemplates. In addition, it is not immediately clear to me which templates this proposal is purporting to carve exmeptions out for, given the vast numbers already excluded from it per the below discussion sections. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Yamaha5 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose–ebraminio^talk 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose –-Calak (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose --Rschen7754 22:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support even if that sitelink is to a template on wikidata (once sitelinks to wikidata pages are enabled). Filceolaire (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Filceolaire:Oops. there're 700000+ subtemplates about data in Chinese administrative divisions [1]. Liangent-bot has already imported all data to Wikidata but these subtemplates still used in articles. (i.e. Articles will use data in Wikidata, but not now; these templates will only be a backup for data in 2011) So, do they worth being creating items about?--GZWDer (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe not. Filceolaire (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose --Paperoastro (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose — TintoMeches, 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose GerardM (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hahc21, Yamaha5: this is to exclude some template's subpages, so support means they should not have items.--GZWDer (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support /doc subpages shouldn't have any Item because they are not dependent pages and their master page has item Yamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Oppose I see the eventual usefulness of having items for the documentation pages of templates. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably you mean oppose?--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is weird. Was this RfC refactored at a later date? because I remember that my votes originally matched my reasonings. Nevermind though. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support No need to have items.--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support –ebraminio^talk 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support –-Calak (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support of course--DangSunM (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Rschen7754 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I started their deletion (and pause that during this discussion). --Nouill (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I think there could be some overlap between languages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Paperoastro (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support John Vandenberg (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — TintoMeches, 13:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support GerardM (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support The important part is only the template itself so they can copy it, not the doc.AldNon^Ucallinme? 06:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support with excluding /sandbox and  Oppose with excluding /testcases. as ebraminio said they be useful and it is better to have item for /testcases Yamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Support There is no benefit at all from having items for these two. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably you mean support?--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so. Hahc, did you mean to exclude both, didn't you? — TintoMeches, 14:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Facepalm Yeah, I meant support. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support No need to have items.--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support /sandbox and  oppose with excluding /testcases. Alright, /sandbox has not cross wiki benefit and is inside wiki stuff. But having /testcases is nice, its sub-page may be translated on each language and may have different names (translation of test, testcase, testcases, unittests, ...). For example for me as an admin on a right to left wiki it is needed to see what is expected result of a meta template like navbox or infobox adaption on other wikis like ours. As we see Wikidata as a Wikimedia communities tool for managing common data, not managing testcases is not seems right IMO. –ebraminio^talk 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose with exclude /testcases but  Support exclude /sandbox.--Calak (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support it's an enwiki thing, I think. --Rschen7754 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do use also, fa:الگو:Navbox/testcases, please compare it with English Wikipedia version. As we do not want #Include subtemplates with only one sitelink so if it would be just enwiki thing we will not add it to Wikidata. –ebraminio^talk 09:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paperoastro (talk • contribs).

@Paperoastro:You forget to sign!--GZWDer (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support John Vandenberg (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — TintoMeches, 13:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support GerardM (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --DangSunM (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Added at 07:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC).)

•  Support --GZWDer (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Paperoastro (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support John Vandenberg (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — TintoMeches, 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support GerardM (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support--Arbnos (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is, runable submodule is allowed.

•  SupportYamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Calak (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment What is a good example of a module subpage? John Vandenberg (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @John Vandenberg: an example of runable module subpage is en:Module:Citation/CS1.--GZWDer (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Could this section renamed to 'Allow items for run-able submodules? John Vandenberg (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support run-able submodules. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – What about pages which aren't 'runable' – example the configuration pages for the Citation/CS1 modules? --Izno (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  SupportYamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--GZWDer (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Calak (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is a subportal? --Rschen7754 22:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754: i.e. portal subpage.--GZWDer (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose without a convincing reason. Portals on different Wikipedias are designed completely differently. --Rschen7754 04:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Rschen7754. --Nouill (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment What is a good example of a portal subpage? A lot of portal subpages are template logic and subpages which are only rendered on certain days of the year. I dont think Wikidata should be mapping the internals of how a Portal page is built. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose We are loosing the concept of database and we are transforming Wikidata into a links directory. Snipre (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Snipre. — TintoMeches, 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support--Arbnos (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose And if they are included, at least 2 links should be in one item. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose – Per my general concerns elsewhere, as well as those stated here by Rschen. --Izno (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  OpposeYamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose--Calak (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Snipre (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — TintoMeches, 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  SupportYamaha5 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose--Calak (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Snipre (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — TintoMeches, 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --Succu (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose because I don't know what is the status quo now... but after this RFC we know better what we should include here. --Stryn (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose ??? --Nouill (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that these pages most often lacks notability for interwiki. But can anybody identify if there are any other functions such items can provide? -- Lavallen (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some cases they are useful for citing (Help:Sources). The pages of de:Kategorie:Vorlage:BibISBN imho should be imported and later step by step replaced through WD. instance of (P31) → version, edition or translation (Q3331189) --Kolja21 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a voting or a page to get arguments (RfC) ? --Succu (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm weird, pretty sure I read Request for comment. I almost vote for some proposal though.AldNon^Ucallinme? 17:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.